Silicon Valley, CA
Geeks. Founders. Startups.
The Internet Revolution.
Founding Partner & Sith Lord, 500 Startups
@coreycrossfield corey, we do support and fund all kinds of entrepreneurs out of our main fund (including several gay men & women founders, at least the ones we know of).
while we don't feel the need to "segregate" anyone, there is certainly benefit to having a supportive group of investors who feel / share some affinity with certain entrepreneurs.
that said you're certainly entitled to your opinion. diff strokes for diff folks.
1 week, 3 days ago on 500 Startups launches LGBT tech event series
agreed on 2 of your 3 predicted predictable reactions to the news... ;)
best of luck Paul & Sarah.
3 months, 2 weeks ago on PandoDaily acquires NSFWCORP to double down on investigative reporting
- Dave "pig in the mud" McClure
6 months, 1 week ago on Let’s start a fight on the Internet
keith, that's just not correct.
we've funded over 500 companies in the past 3 years, at least 1/2 of which went thru incubators -- either ours at 500, or at YC, TechStars, AngelPad & others. while its certainly not the case that a majority of them raise Series A -- most of them are only raising $500K-$1M at first -- regardless we've seen a bunch of them move up to a $3-5M Series A within a year or two after.
while its true the car for Series A has gotten higher, it's also true that MANY other sources if capital are now available as alternatives. and altho it's tough sometimes, it's certainly easier than ever to raise capital if a company has good products and reasonable user / revenue traction.
happy to show you the detailed list of over 50-100 companies we've seen get to Series A in the past few years.
- DMC .
6 months, 1 week ago on A rare defense of venture capital classic
@LoraKolodny @DaveMcClure @Sarahcuda indeed, i'm leaving my PC now to go spend the afternoon at the pool with the kids :)
@damiansen however, sarah *is* smart... which is why i'm both surprised / disappointed in the perspective.
umm... seriously Sarah you really believe this?
you must be hanging out with too many blue shirts / khaki pants folks on sand hill road... either that or you're smoking something.
while the opportunity to raise shitloads of capital to grow companies is never going to go away, the organizations they raise it from, the process they go through, and the dilution they take as a result are changing pretty fucking dramatically.
* how many "traditional" silicon valley VC firms would bet over $250M on single company. (Google Ventures & Uber)
* how many "traditional" silicon valley VC firms spend millions of dollars building out non-investment resources to help with biz dev, corp dev, recruiting, etc (Andreessen-Horowitz)
* how many "traditional" silicon valley VC firms create micro-funds aimed at funding college students (First Round Capital, Founders Fund)
* how many "traditional" silicon valley VC firms create online platforms in only 3 years that are facilitating $150M in transactions per year at ABSOLUTELY NO CHARGE and are growing over 100% per year (Angel List)
* how many "traditional" silicon valley VC firms help over 100 companies per year get funded, on less than $50-100K each, and help those companies achieve Series A level valuations (Y Combinator)
* how many "traditional" silicon valley VC firms have funded over 500 startups in only 3 years, with over 150 of them from outside the US across 35+ countries. (500 Startups)
all of the firms mentioned above would likely describe themselves as "platforms".
now some of them may look like traditional funds managing billions (A16Z), and some of them may look like seed funds (FRC), but they sure as hell aren't the same structure & approach to venture capital as the folks who started the business 40-50 years ago... more importantly, they sure as hell aren't the same folks on Sand Hill Road who are doing the same old shtick for the past several decades.
now there's nothing wrong with being a traditional $250-500M fund with smart, connected people who sit on board seats and write a few $5-20M checks every year.... but to suggest that those folks are all our industry ever needs, and that these folks aren't facing SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION themselves in the past few year / next decade... well, i'd have to say you're nowhere near as smart as i thought you were.
happy to debate the topic in person, on stage, online, anyplace, anywhere... but you couldn't be more wrong.
founding partner & troublemake at "platform" 500 Startups
1 minor correction: i met Dropifi (from Ghana) in Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), while attending an entrepreneur conference there earlier this year.
however, i will be going to Africa for the first time next month... who knows, maybe we'll find our next investment there too :)
7 months, 4 weeks ago on Are you a female founder from the Middle East? 500 Startups wants to hear from you
so sad. jeffrey was a great guy, loving father & husband, funny prankster, and dedicated geek evangelist. I met jeffrey while working at PayPal when he was at eBay, and we remained friends thru the years, including watching Twilio get started, and his startup efforts at CodeLesson. he will be sorely missed. RIP :(
8 months, 1 week ago on Valley veteran Jeffrey McManus passes away suddenly
Francisco: i did *NOT* say you should put "all the money you have into startups"... what i was saying is that the US Govt's restrictions on investing (re: the JOBS Act) did not make much sense, given all the incentives we provide for people to buy houses, and the fiasco in the most recent financial crisis where many people lost all their money because they were buying a house that was far too expensive for them.
there are risks in investing in both housing and startups, and i wouldn't suggest anyone do either without appropriate time & effort to research those areas. that said, FAR more people jump into housing investments without any knowledge of the matter.
please don't take my tongue-in-cheek comments at Jason's show as financial advice, and please don't assert my perspective without checking with me first, thanks.
9 months ago on What if things don’t work out for you?
fabulous post, and appreciate all the data & insights.
note: i'd suggest summarizing the top-line summary succinctly as "enterprise sales is hard -- and constrained by finding expensive & talented sales people".
a corollary to this might also be "if you can develop scalable channels of online marketing, you might have an easier time focusing on consumer and/or SMB customer targets, where direct sales is not the critical factor".
this is a critical observation, and one of the reasons 500 Startups focuses more on consumer & SMB businesses over enterprise -- they take advantage of the growth of online audiences, the dramatic increases in reach available via search / social / mobile platforms, and they also don't require anywhere near as much resource cost to scale.
this is perhaps an overgeneralization / re-iteration of your main points, but you could make both these points equivalently:
- enterprise businesses monetize well, but are notoriously difficult & expensive to scale, largely due to challenges in growing a direct sales team.
- consumer (and also SMB) businesses may or may not monetize well, but they are comparatively MUCH EASIER to scale, largely due to the efficiencies and advances in online marketing channels, and the relative ease of automation / low-cost compared to people-driven enterprise biz.
9 months, 3 weeks ago on Memo to this year’s YC class: It’s damn hard to build an enterprise company
(now go give your mom a call)
10 months ago on Dave McClure, Risk Taker
and we are very happy to have you folks in 500 Startups too :)
10 months, 1 week ago on KiteReaders is at 500 Startups!
legit points on raise / capitalization / etc.
however I didn't think the international piece was on target, and since we've invested in 3-4 intl ticketing co's, we think that's got plenty of potential for traction.
10 months, 2 weeks ago on Raising money for the sake of raising money
Bryan: pretty sure EventBrite has come NOWHERE CLOSE to expanding in the international front based on the opportunities available in major economies across europe & Asia & Latin America. we have invested in ticketing startups in Japan, brazil, chile, and have other opportunities in emerging markets and developed markets as well.
whether or not EventBrite is over capitalized ill leave to other tea leaf prognosticators, but at least one of your arguments is faulty here. and I also have Ni idea why you think ticket master wint be surpassed -- there is most certainly a TON of unexplored market opportunity in the US, and regardless ticket master is absilutely vulnerable to competition.
perhaps kevin has raised money because he can, but it's not clear to me there isn't plenty of opportunity to grow into a larger valuation based on both domestic and international market potential.
other than those gross inaccuracies, the rest of your piece is quite thought-provoking.
just to clarify: the 500 Startups *Fund* invests the capital (typically $50K USD), and our 500 Startups Accelerator (separate LLC) charges btwn $12-24k per company, depending on # founders / non-founders participating.
as you suggest, net proceeds to the startup end up being $26-38K, which is actually more than most other accelerators provide total.
note: the reason we charge a program fee is to be able to cover our own costs and operate with larger staff and resources than most other accelerator programs. in future, assuming we have more capital under mgmt / more funds from other sources, we may do away with the program fees, however over the last 3 years it's been a useful way to cover our costs as we got off the ground. that said, it can be a challenge explaining to companies why we charge fees when most others don't.
thanks for providing the detail on how we operate. appreciate the correct info.
10 months, 2 weeks ago on This accelerator charges its companies $25,000. That’s just wrong — right?
congrats to Rick Baker & Niki Scevak -- StartMate is a terrific program, and 500 Startups has already invested in over 7 StartMate companies, and over 10 Aussie startups in total! #ozzieozzieozzie #oyoyoy!
10 months, 3 weeks ago on In cash-strapped Aussie venture market, a bird flies into a vacuum
@bgoldberg @DaveMcClure @orangerobot I was drunk, and being overly snotty / VC-like... also hadn't read it very closely when I first replied. after sobering up a bit, decided it was unnecessarily aggressive and deleted it.
11 months, 1 week ago on An acquisition is always a failure
ok, i've re-read this post again, and i get where jake is coming from... perhaps my initial knee-jerk reaction was incorrect.
while i still don't quite agree with a binary perspective of "big IPO = success / everything else = failure", i can certainly sympathize with the personal tragedy of selling your company to someone who doesn't always share your vision or values. (i had to sell my first business in the mid-90's, and it also wasn't a pretty situation).
(gee whiz, maybe i've become a little too much of an investor... and yes i do share the desire to create a great big company someday)
@orangerobot @DaveMcClure agreed that most acquisitions are not the dream that the founders had for the company... however to label them ALL as a "failure" is an extreme perspective that isn't accurate on either an economic, or on product / customer terms.
while i can sympathize with Jake -- i also had to sell my first company to an acquirer under less-than-ideal terms, and i also felt like i was selling my baby -- i would suggest that this perspective is a bit narrow around very personal and selfish goals for the founder, and not necessarily in the best interests of the employees or customers.
in any case, i agree and understand that not all outcomes should be measured in economic terms -- but neither should the outcome be considered binary as either a success or failure. there are many shades of grey inbetween.